Chamber and committees

Good morning, and thank you for the information that you sent the committee ahead of today’s meeting. In the spirit of sharing, I will say that I also remember my school residential trip. As a disabled person, my experience was quite different. My school had to create a very different trip. You got to choose whether you would go to an outdoor centre and which of the activities you got involved in, none of which were really suitable for me as a wheelchair user. Therefore, the school created a separate option, and all the pupils from the mainstream school were also able to choose that option, which focused on drama and included an element of outdoor learning.

How well does residential learning, including outdoor learning, meet the needs of all pupils, including those with additional support needs? You have all said that the benefits are most keenly felt by more deprived socioeconomic groups, which is really useful information. How well could residential outdoor education meet the needs of all pupils?

I want to follow up on Professor Mannion’s point. My colleague George Adam said that we are sharing some personal experience; we are, and that is important.

In your submission, you lift the issue to the systemic. You say that

“systemic support for the schools, staff, communities and partner organisations that provide for outdoor learning”

would be needed. In the context of this part of the discussion, could you tell us a bit more about what that support might look like?

Do I have time for one more question?

On that vision for inclusive qualifications assessment, inspiring learning and valuing achievement, does the Government response give the witnesses any confidence that there could be improvement in each of those three parts? For example, does its response to the pathway and the exams—and whether it will retain them—give a sense that it will resolve any of the problems that we have heard about?

Peter Bain, you said that the curriculum was warped by the assessment process. Do you get any sense that what the cabinet secretary set out understands the scale of the challenge and will deliver on those parts of the vision?

I know that many local leaders and education leaders were brought into the delivery of the vision. Douglas Hutchison, what has been their reaction to the cabinet secretary’s response?

The cabinet secretary said that she would look at that part of the review and at some of its implications. I am struck by some of the evidence that we have had previously—it was possibly Professor Hayward who said that, once you lift the lid on the matter, you see that there could be a problem, and you either close the lid and move on or you leave it off and try to fix the situation. For the 20 per cent of young people who are leaving without nat 5s, not doing the latter would seem to be quite problematic. Is there anything at all in the Government response that can help that 20 per cent of people in the absence of that?

Good morning to our witnesses. Thank you for your responses so far, and for the information that you submitted in advance.

Professor Hayward, I made a note of your saying that “vision is everything”, and that one thing that keeps you up at night is the risk of losing a sense of purpose without that vision. Your report sets out a vision for

“an inclusive and highly regarded Qualifications and Assessment system that inspires learning”

and

“values the diverse achievements of every learner”.

The vision includes a bit more than that, but that will do for the purpose of this meeting. In the absence of any vision from the Scottish Government at this point, do you get any sense from its response so far—without waiting until December—that it understands and shares that vision?

Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary and officials.

We have heard a lot of evidence on the bill and I am sure that the cabinet secretary will have carefully watched, or listened to, most if not all of it. A number of people remain concerned that the bill still does not resolve some of the issues. For example, Ken Muir told the committee:

“it is probably not the case that the bill, as it is currently constituted, will drive a bottom-up approach.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 18 September 2024; c 9.]

The cabinet secretary spoke about the need to take people with her, but the evidence has suggested to us that people are not necessarily going with her on this. How would she respond to those comments?

That is appreciated, and I think that most people will agree that standing still is not an option. The higher history stuff is an example of that. The Association of Directors of Education told us, and teachers also told us, that they do not think that the bill responds to their views in the way that you have suggested. That is something that you should reflect on.

If it is not about legislation and it is not always about structures, how would the Government characterise responsive leadership? How has it supported that and a good culture in education in the past 10 years?

My question is in a similar vein. The Government has laid quite a lot of responsibility for fixing some of the issues with the qualifications body and the wider education landscape on the charters. How will the Government ensure that the charters are sufficiently ambitious?